can someone explain why is says only 2 have been awardered?!?!?! the list i have (2008) says theres 6 for the boer war, 67 for WW1 (9 of those from gallipoli) 2 for russia, 20 for WW2 and 4 for vietnam, thats 102!!! not 2! why is there only the two from 2009 and 2011 not the others? 188.8.131.52 (talk) 07:31, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
That's explained in Victoria Cross for Australia#History. To cut a short story shorter, the VCs awarded to Australians prior to 1991 were the British VC. In 1991 the separate VC for Australia was established. Nick-D (talk) 07:49, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
okay, i accept that but why is there always seprate articals for things that could be included in a single artical, especialy when it comes to lists? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 16:05, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
In the UK, the Victoria Cross and George Cross are held in equally high esteem and this has led to the incorrect claim which can even be found in UK government media releases that they are equivalent awards. The British Order of Wear is quite explicit that the George Cross ranks immediately below the Victoria Cross. Sadly, the George Cross has been the poor cousin of the Victoria Cross in Australia and more sadly the Cross of Valour has been completely overshadowed by the VC for Australia. The claim in the right hand box that the Cross of Valour is equivalent to the VC for Australia is contradicted not supported by the two references quoted. Anthony Staunton (talk) 00:38, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
--Order of Wear is not the same thing as precedence. On the page for the Victoria Cross it has a sourced reference (reference no. 52) which says the George Cross has equal precedence to the Victoria Cross, but is awarded second because it is newer (ie, it is second in the Order of Wear). The Order of Wear does not really relate to how awards rank in relation to each other. It's the precedence that determines the rank of one award in relation to another. The George Cross was clearly intended to rank alongside the Victoria Cross (reference is on the George Cross page, reference no.5, said by King George VI), and the Cross of Valour is just an Australian replacement award for the George Cross, with equal precedence to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 23:40, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Reference no. 5 on the George Cross page quotes King George VI who said that ‘the George Cross ... will rank next to the Victoria Cross’ which trumps MOD media releases. In 1975, the Australian Honours System commenced with the first awards being the Order of Australia, the Australian Bravery Awards and the first attempt at Australian Defence long service awards. The Australian Bravery Awards were not inspired by the George Cross and other British non operational bravery awards but the Canadian Bravery Awards although Australia followed the British practice by having an Australian Commendation for Bravery. However, the Cross of Valour in Australia like the George Cross has a very low profile compared to the Victoria Cross and the Victoria Cross for Australia. Anthony Staunton (talk) 14:52, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
My recent edit has been reverted: I changed "highest honour" to "highest military" honour. pdfpdf said: To say it is the highest military award implies that there is a civil award that is higher. There isn't. Quite simply, it is the highest award." It does not imply any such thing. The civilian George Cross/Cross of Valour is equal in the Australian honours system to the VC. My edit should stand. Marchino61 (talk) 00:00, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
a) Well, if it does NOT imply that there is a higher civilian honour, what is the point of saying it's the highest military honour? Please explain.
b) Are you saying that is NOT the (equal) highest honour?
Also, not only is it bad ettiquette, it is contrary to wikipedia policy for you to revert my challenge to your edit before consensus is reached on this talk page. Please revert your edit until such time as consensus is reached. Pdfpdf (talk) 00:36, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
One of the confusing elements is the Order of Wearing v Order of Precedence issue. The Commonwealth Table of Precedence equates the Order of Wearing with an Order of Precedence 32. Recipients of decorations and honours taking precedence over Knights Bachelor and Knights of various Orders (including Knights Bachelor), all according to precedence promulgated in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette Monday June 17 1996. . This is also the case in the use of postnominals, in that they appear after the name in precedence as per the Order of Wear. --Oliver Nouther (talk) 01:41, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
If the Commonwealth Table of Precedence equates the ‘order of wearing’ with an ‘order of precedence’ that supports the view that in the context of the positioning of the wearing of Australian Orders, Decorations and Medals the phrases ‘order of wearing’ and ‘order of precedence’ are interchangeable. The phrase ‘order of precedence’ had been replaced by the phase ‘order of wearing’ in the title of the 1996 document quoted but ‘order of precedence’ did appear in the text of that document. In the most recent document published in 2007, the phrase appears neither in the title nor text of the document. Anthony Staunton (talk) 07:22, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
I do not think so but it may have been a politician. Just speculation but Sir John Smyth Bt VC MC MP was the first president of the VC Association and early on invited GC recipients to join the association, first as associates and then as full members and then renamed the society the VC and GC Association. So while warrant or Order of Wear indicates one thing a public perception in the UK has grown that they are equivalent awards. This view has never really been accepted in Australia. Examine how the VCFAs deservedly get publicity but CVs are all but ignored. Anthony Staunton (talk) 21:22, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
I just noticed that the article has not yet been updated in regards to the finalised Defence Honours and Awards Tribunal's "Inquiry into unresolved recognition for past acts of naval and military gallantry and valour". The report was finalised and submitted to Government on 6 February 2013, recommending that no retrospective awards be made (among other things). See here. I don't really have the time at the moment to update the article, but will do so tomorrow if someone hasn't beaten me to it. :) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 11:57, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
The article has now been updated. Feel free to tweak! Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:34, 3 August 2013 (UTC)